Perception Without Reason Is Mere Experience, but Reason Without Perception Is Nothing.
'Perception without reason is mere experience, but reason without perception is nothing.'
In order to comment on the statement given above, we must first understand what is meant by the terms perception and reason. One of the most commonly used definitions, from the most trusted source of definitions, of perception is the ability to become aware of something through our senses and to understand/interpret it in a particular way, whereas reason is commonly defined as the ability to think and draw logical conclusions¹. However, I believe that to perceive something in our mind is to interpret the sensory input received from our immediate surroundings, whereas reason is associated with logical thought and rationale. Therefore the statement above can be rephrased to say that 'Interpretation of the outside world without the interference of a logical thought is what we call experience, but logical thought and rationale without any interpretation of the world does not exist.'
But how can one be aware of something if one's brain does not think about it? How can one interpret something without the interference of thought? Since in my opinion, thinking is just using one's mind to process the information input from our senses, how can that information be interpret without having one's brain process it? Thus, put in another way, how can perception exist without reason? It cannot, because to perceive something would mean to unconsciously think. However, others may argue that by mentioning reason the statement refers to a stream of conscious thought instead of something as instinctual as unconscious processing of sensory data.
However, keeping in mind the counter-argument, the second half of the statement could still be challenged. I believe that our mind is capable of thinking of abstract thought without the interference of senses. Our mind is able to comprehend concepts and "platonic ideas" such as goodness and can think about them without the need of an interpretation of the
In order to comment on the statement given above, we must first understand what is meant by the terms perception and reason. One of the most commonly used definitions, from the most trusted source of definitions, of perception is the ability to become aware of something through our senses and to understand/interpret it in a particular way, whereas reason is commonly defined as the ability to think and draw logical conclusions¹. However, I believe that to perceive something in our mind is to interpret the sensory input received from our immediate surroundings, whereas reason is associated with logical thought and rationale. Therefore the statement above can be rephrased to say that 'Interpretation of the outside world without the interference of a logical thought is what we call experience, but logical thought and rationale without any interpretation of the world does not exist.'
But how can one be aware of something if one's brain does not think about it? How can one interpret something without the interference of thought? Since in my opinion, thinking is just using one's mind to process the information input from our senses, how can that information be interpret without having one's brain process it? Thus, put in another way, how can perception exist without reason? It cannot, because to perceive something would mean to unconsciously think. However, others may argue that by mentioning reason the statement refers to a stream of conscious thought instead of something as instinctual as unconscious processing of sensory data.
However, keeping in mind the counter-argument, the second half of the statement could still be challenged. I believe that our mind is capable of thinking of abstract thought without the interference of senses. Our mind is able to comprehend concepts and "platonic ideas" such as goodness and can think about them without the need of an interpretation of the